Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Genghis
Caliph
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Genghis and Hitler Posted: 20-Jan-2005 at 10:29 |
I believe Genghis furthered the progress of Asia. Just look at the success of the following Yuan dynasty and such.
|
Member of IAEA
|
|
Tobodai
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jan-2005 at 11:30 |
Originally posted by Aristoteles
I find it of extremely bad tast, cynical, silly, childish, immature and a host of other similar characterizations (enter whatever you wish, no matter how harsh, I'll subscribe to it) to justify mass genocide and horrendous acts of mass brutality, by simply stating silly things like "yes, but those times were different" or "sure he killed many, but that was normal back then" or other similar bull.
Genghis is considered the greatest mass murderer of all times, he devastated an entire continent and halted the progress for the whole Asia, and you dare to compare him with people like Charlamagne, Alexander, J. Ceasar or any other for that account? All the conquerors of all times haven't done half of what the Mongols did alone.
We've lost any sense of reason here, haven't we?
How would the Ghenghiz admirers (even those named after him - we've got two resident Khan-nettes, huh?) feel if it was their mothers raped and then slaughtered, their fathers butchered, their brothers and sisters massacred? How would they feel if it was their homes torn down, their crops burned, their land ravaged?
Would you still feel that Ghenghiz was nothing more than "a great conqueror" and such similar crap?
|
and please tell me how this is different from any other steppe or even non steppe conqueror
|
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jan-2005 at 14:16 |
yeah, and look at those innocent empries he has defeated in combat, the Jin empire and its corrupted court that fougth numerous indecisive wars with the Song before, the Kwarazmians, whose leader was a religious fanatic that conquered neighbours in the name of Allah, the Buddhist Kara Khitai that surpressed it's Muslim population plus quarreling russian princes that waged war on other princes just to get more powerful. and here we have Chingiz, who has endured the murder of his father, the loss of his tribe, being outlawed and even kept prisoner under humilating circumstances, his wife being robbed by his enemies out of revenge and being raped, but he did not invaded a single country out of the lust for conquest, but only in retaliation. and only one generation alter all the territories mentioned were pacified, and this is a region from southern China to Poland and from the middle east to Korea. the major trade routes between east and west were reestablished and flourished like enver before, the Mongols had a capital that included religious buildings of various religions that co-existed peacefully, members of the conquered people and other foreigners holding major offices under the Khan, and ultimately the laws of the Chingiz that were far ahead of their time.
|
|
Miller
Baron
Joined: 25-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 487
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jan-2005 at 14:21 |
Lets just say there is no such thing as right or wrong and this all something we just imagine. Many people in prisons grow up in the bad part of town and they should be released because they are not that much worse than other criminals in there neighborhood and they should all be released.
|
|
El_Bandito
Knight
Joined: 03-Jan-2005
Location: Mongolia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 66
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jan-2005 at 21:43 |
To create one's ideal empire, he must start from the beginning and wipe
out all the impurities. Kinda like the Biblical flood.
Chinggis understood that principle.
|
I'm awake, I'm awake.
|
|
Genghis
Caliph
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jan-2005 at 21:47 |
To create, one must destroy.
|
Member of IAEA
|
|
Tobodai
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jan-2005 at 22:08 |
also we arent even mentioning his civic acheivements, made even more remarkable by the fact he was a nomad who was illiterate, he adopted an alphabet for his people, a proto-constitution granting thnings like religious freedom, religious freedom as a nations codified document int he 13th century, thats ahead of ones time.
|
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
|
|
Mangudai
Consul
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 368
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Jan-2005 at 05:44 |
Originally posted by Temujin
well it's simple, Chinggis Qaan was a person that had a good personality, he created stable environment due to his wars and his laws which an even be cosnidered democratic. Hitler however had the intention to kill people he doesn't like, before the war he even categorized the kind of people he would kill because he thougth of them to be inferior. Napoleon has already been mentioned, the win-the-war theory can therefore be dismissed... |
Democratic?! Aw c'mon!
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Jan-2005 at 12:46 |
I said it was democratic, not a demoracy...
|
|
Mangudai
Consul
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 368
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Jan-2005 at 03:24 |
Originally posted by Temujin
I said it was democratic, not a demoracy... |
Well buddy, then we have completely different concepts of what "democratic" means...
I can't see anything democratic in the mongol empire. There were no votes, no electorals, no political forum - nothing that has to do with democracy and it's principles
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Jan-2005 at 08:19 |
First of all, I should say '' Hello everyone!''. Then I hope you will help me with my improvement of my history knowledge. n addition to this, I wish there was someone who proved that ''Chinggis khaan wasn't Turkish!''. Thank you.
Edited by solo
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Jan-2005 at 12:19 |
Originally posted by Mangudai
Originally posted by Temujin
I said it was democratic, not a demoracy... |
Well buddy, then we have completely different concepts of what "democratic" means...
I can't see anything democratic in the mongol empire. There were no votes, no electorals, no political forum - nothing that has to do with democracy and it's principles
|
so what? there was the Quriltai and the absolute religious freedom, what more can you expect from a medieval country? and the fundament fot he coutnry were strict but fair laws.
Edited by Temujin
|
|
Degredado
Consul
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Portugal
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 366
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Jan-2005 at 13:17 |
I think you all neglect one thing: Hitler died almost sixty years ago. The memory is still fresh.
How long ago did the Mongol empire crumble? Several centuries ago.
It's a matter of memory
|
Vou votar nas putas. Estou farto de votar nos filhos delas
|
|
warhead
General
Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 760
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Jan-2005 at 21:35 |
"Just look at the success of the following Yuan dynasty and such."
LIKE WHAT? WIDESPREAD POVERTY AND DISCRIMINATIVE LAWS? The Yuan is what ended the progress under Song, there is a marked decline in many fields of industry such as the iron and agricultural. Ironically even the horse industry suffered even though they are nomads.
Comparing Genghis to Hitler is actually not as well as comparing him to Hideki Tojo, the Mongols and the imperial Japanese were more similar to each other than to Hitler, they raped, pillaged and slaughtered cities for pleasure. Zhong Du was utterly destroyed. And Kublai had to built it from scratch, you can find that in Yuan Shi as well as archeological evidence. Similarily the Tangut population in Nin Xia was exterminated. The reason Genghis defenders gave was that the people resisted. Hilarious, thats what the Japanese did in world war two as well. And even they did not kill as much which was ironic considering the world population is not as large back then yet the numbers slaughtered was still higher.
People say time factor, thats dull. Time isn't the only factor, so are culture and space. Germany and Japan didn't think these are unacceptable, only the west did!
As for no one think killing is wrong back then, thats incorrect as well. Mass slaughter has always been dreaded by the ideal of East Asia and even though there isn't a law against it, the historical texts always critisize them severely. So you argue that the mongols are a different culture so they are "more acceptable". Then neitehr does Hitler and Tojo's generals consider the West European moraily as logical either. Then again what international law are there in world war 2 that saids slaugher are illegal?
As for Chenjis having a great personality, have you all forgot this quote
"Its pleasurable to see the tears of the people" doesn't sound too much better than Hitler, if not worse considering he don't view any people as humans and disposed of when necessary. As for not killing people he doesn't like, please where did that BS came from, all rulers of the past and Genghis isn't an acception would kill people they don't like.
Its not Genghis thats overrated as a killer, but that Hitler is overrated, he isn't any different from many rulers of the past and the only difference is that he lived in this century.
|
|
El_Bandito
Knight
Joined: 03-Jan-2005
Location: Mongolia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 66
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Jan-2005 at 23:41 |
Wait wait wait. From where did you get the idea of Chinggis not
viewing others as NOT HUMAN? That ideology is more akin to
Hitler's view of Jews, or Israeli's view of Palestinians.
Chinggis always respected intellectuals even if they are from different
culture. Although he did slaughter many, he never said that the
killed were INHUMAN.
Also, if the people you conquered continue to resist despite your
strict administration, which method are going to use if you were an
ancient nomad leader? Acknowledge those people's rights and
withdraw or just kill them and educate their offsprings with your
ideal?
PS: I must go and dig through the Secret History of the Mongols
and see if indeed Chinggis said that he enjoyed watching the women cry
after their dead husbands etc... For all we know, it could just
be pure European demonification of Chinggis. After all he
commanded the devil's horsemen didn't he?
Edited by El_Bandito
|
I'm awake, I'm awake.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jan-2005 at 05:45 |
Originally posted by El_Bandito
Wait wait wait. From where did you get the idea of Chinggis not
viewing others as NOT HUMAN? That ideology is more akin to
Hitler's view of Jews, or Israeli's view of Palestinians.
Chinggis always respected intellectuals even if they are from different
culture. Although he did slaughter many, he never said that the
killed were INHUMAN. |
So massacring people is ok, as long as you keep in mind they're humans?
|
|
Mangudai
Consul
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 368
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jan-2005 at 08:28 |
Originally posted by Temujin
so what? there was the Quriltai and the absolute religious freedom, what more can you expect from a medieval country? and the fundament fot he coutnry were strict but fair laws.
|
Yes, but still it's not even close to democratic. The qurultai was not for the people - it was for the mongol aristocracy. Chinggis didn't act as a tyrant, nor a popular, democratic leader. He acted more like an "enlighted despot"
PS: I must go and dig through the Secret History of the Mongols and see if indeed Chinggis said that he enjoyed watching the women cry after their dead husbands etc... For all we know, it could just be pure European demonification of Chinggis. After all he commanded the devil's horsemen didn't he? |
it's not from the secret history, but from a non-contemporary persian historian
Edited by Mangudai
|
|
white dragon
Consul
Joined: 27-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 356
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jan-2005 at 19:22 |
quote
I think you all neglect one thing: Hitler died almost sixty years ago. The memory is still fresh.
How long ago did the Mongol empire crumble? Several centuries ago.
It's a matter of memory
endquote
we did not neglect this point.
if you were to read earlier on you would see that we
adressed this point
Quote
Germany and Japan didn't think these are unacceptable, only the west did!
endquote
uhhh... unless im sadly mistaken, germany is considered
part of the west
quote
So massacring people is ok, as long as you keep in mind they're humans?
endquote
now thats just dumb
i have always hated it when people twist other's word
and read way too far into them like that.
he never said its ok, just that Gengis never said they
weren't human. i believe what he was pointing out was
that Gengis and Hitler had different ways of thinking
with WHY they killed alot of people
|
Pray as if everything depended upon God and work as if everything depended upon man.
-Francis Cardinal Spellman
|
|
Murph
Consul
Joined: 28-Nov-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 319
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jan-2005 at 19:50 |
Originally posted by white dragon
Gengis and Hitler had different ways of thinking
with WHY they killed alot of people |
so does that justify it and make genghis a more "acceptable" mass murderer than hitler?
|
|
white dragon
Consul
Joined: 27-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 356
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jan-2005 at 22:01 |
Quote
white dragon wrote:
Gengis and Hitler had different ways of thinking
with WHY they killed alot of people
so does that justify it and make genghis a more "acceptable" mass murderer than hitler?
Endquote
yet another thing i hate. quoting part of something someone says to mangle the meaning of what they say
i never said it justifies what they did. what i said
was
Quote
he never said its ok, just that Gengis never said they
weren't human. i believe what he was pointing out was
that Gengis and Hitler had different ways of thinking
with WHY they killed alot of people
endquote
stop only quoting apart of what people say to change the
meaning
|
Pray as if everything depended upon God and work as if everything depended upon man.
-Francis Cardinal Spellman
|
|